Mitt Romneys presidential campaign on Monday rejected a Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act, repudiating a contention made in last weeks Supreme Court decision that the laws requirement that individuals carry medical coverage amounts to a tax.

The Romney teams refusal to invoke the word tax with regard to the individual mandate puts the candidate at odds with others in his party at a moment when Republicans are attempting to capi­tal­ize on the Supreme Courts decision, which deemed President Obamas health-care law constitutional. Some Republican-led states are trying to thwart the legislations effort to cover the poor.

In an interview Monday on MSNBC, Romney campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with the courts ruling that the mandate was a tax.

Although disappointing to conservatives, the justices decision contained what they regard as two silver linings: the potential to fuel political opposition to the law and a path to undermine its substance.

First, in ruling that Congress has the ability under its taxation power to fine people who choose not to have health coverage, the court undercut Obamas credibility on how to define that provision. The president had insisted repeatedly that it is not a tax....

It matters not what the camp or Obama says. The question is decided. The argument is over. It is a Tax. The issue is decided.

If there is disagreement or disdain or hate, the remedy is not involved with what is or is not a tax. The remedy is involved in a process that tosses the tax out and doing it over in an acceptable manner.

Grumbling after the fact is irrelevant. It is a tax. The decision was handed down

Romney appears to be the typical Republican Establishment presidential candidate, in the mold of Dole/McCain/Ford. His idea os the pinnacle is the Republican Party Nomination. He seems, at best, to be indifferent to winning the presidency, perhaps even averse. The Republican Party is afflicted with Gentlemen Politicians who want the acclaim of other Republican gentlemen but not so much the onus of governing.

We can't have it both ways - criticizing Roberts for calling it a tax to make it constitutional then trashing Romney for agreeing, and not calling it a tax. Romney is siding with the dissenters, who made a much more compelling argument against the law. (All that commerce clause stuff feels good, but in not binding as precedent.)

The argument against Obama that he passed the biggest tax increase ever based on Obamacare is weak. The fact he thinks the Federal Gov’t can run health care better than the private sector and that he rammed through this unpopular socialist program remains the issue. It is what won the 2010 mid-terms. And, he ignored other pressing issues while ramming away. This is also a strong counter argument against immigration policy, economy issues, etc.

Although we all would have rather Roberts side with the conservatives on the Court, this decision will bring a lot of energy, anger and participation to those on the right. It may turn out to be the deciding factor in November. We need the Tea Partiers to get revved up again!

Romney is right - it is not, nor should have been ruled a tax. That being said, since it was ruled a tax, reconciliation works in the Senate and we only need 51 votes to overturn there- need 4 more seats. That is where the action will be!

We need Romney and 4 Senators to take back the country. During Romney's 8 years, a bunch of liberals will likely leave bench and with the Senate, we can get some real conservative appointed.

Every response on this thread, so far has bitten into the media bias, hook, line and sinker. It is leading into destructive behavior; Romney’s stupid, Romney’s doing what McCain did, etc, etc.

At worst, the Romney camp is guilty of not giving a clear and concise response. While that is a problem in and of itself, it is a far cry from capitulation to obama on the issue. And what is worse, Romney is right; it IS a penalty.

The Dems are trying to have it both ways; it’s NOT a tax, but rather a penalty (despite what the SC says) and it’s constitutional (despite what the SC says).

The Romney camp is saying, Gov. Romney has ALWAYS held that it was a penalty, and it’s constitutionally legal in the state of Mass. The problem is that they haven’t gone the extra step to explain how that fits with the SC ruling on the issue. Instead of lining it out in simple terms, they fumbled and assumed that people are smart enough to know the difference.

It’s obvious through the response of the libs, and the dazed look on the faces of people you talk to, that Civics 101, as taught in the US education system fails teach people how it all works. And that, combined with some people’s hate of Romney, or anyone else who is not a pure-strain conservative as they view themselves, is what will be the ultimate down-fall of our great nation.

My advice; teach people where they need to be taught. Die hard liberals won’t listen; most everyone else will, as long as you are teaching; not preaching.

15
posted on 07/03/2012 5:35:24 AM PDT
by Turbo Pig
(...to close with and destroy the enemy...)

Every response on this thread, so far has bitten into the media bias, hook, line and sinker. It is leading into destructive behavior; Romneys stupid, Romneys doing what McCain did, etc, etc.

I'm with you. I'm not in any way thrilled with Romney, but he's the only option on the ballot who (1) might win, and (2) claims he will repeal ObamaCare. If Romney does in fact win and keeps his word on repeal, it will not matter what he said about this being a tax or a penalty. If Romney is a loser or a liar, then things will get VERY ugly, and again it will not matter what Romney said.

17
posted on 07/03/2012 5:39:24 AM PDT
by Pollster1
(A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)

No clearer example of why Romney was never the best choice from the GOP field.

1. Too moderate (I want to get along)
2. His record sucks
3. Foolish to even open his mouth and utter words (He should have just said “I respect the Supreme Court’s decision and will abide by it”.)
4. Out-of-touch with Americans who say “IT IS A TAX, STUPID”
45. Like McCain, trying desparately to fail.

We need new leadership. Sarah, where are you?

21
posted on 07/03/2012 5:45:02 AM PDT
by bestintxas
(Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot, thankfully.)

Are you trying to help the Obama media push this talking point here and divide US and get obama elected !

I dont trust your motives here !

Can you show me the link where Mitt Romney has come out against THIS biggest tax hike in American history called ObamaCare? You post it here in comments and I will post it on FR (if it does not already have its own thread). Send me the link where Romney calls this for what it really is.

The president said it was not a tax, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said in an interview on Fox News Sunday. The Supreme Court, which has the final say, says it is a tax.

Republicans who are jumping on the "tax increase" bandwagon are idiots.

I'm having trouble fathoming this comment.

The phrase "tax increase" is toxic in a presidential campaign.

Regardless of whether its a fine, or a tax, or a mandate, shouldn't Romney shove the SCOTUS ruling down Obama's throat by using the phrase, now that they've salvaged his signature legislation by using the "tax increase" rationale?

it is not a tax in the forms that the Constitution grants taxing power to Congress

And therein lies the poison pill; Roberts only ruled that the mandate represents a tax. He did not rule on what kind of tax it might be, nor on the constitutionality of the specific tax itself.

The challenge will now be focused on the tax. Since the kind/type of tax isn't specified in the original act, it may be as simple as a lower court simply declaring the tax as unconstitutional, because it doesn't meet any the criteria you listed.

If a court allows Congress to refine/define what kind/type of tax it is, and if Congress doesn't then act, it could also die. Or, it could rule that the tax falls within one of your criteria, but then that opens up a whole new set of challenges regarding exemptions, etc.

Roberts is either a genius for throwing this in the quagmire of tax details, or he lit the fuse for CWII. If we start to see the next series of legal challenges, I will stick with my opinion #1.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.